About strong and independent women in media

[Skynstein]

I've been wanting to make this thread for a while, because I think there are people here who will be able to help me.

You probably aren't aware that I'm writing a book. With a female protagonist.

I follow some feminists on Twitter and they seem to value strong and independent women in media, but sometimes I feel they exaggerate. Like, every fictional girl from now on needs to pass some sort of "test" of "strength" and "independence" in order to be a good feminine example. I read a review of Guardians of the Galaxy which criticized the fact Gamora (a strong and independent feminine character) was put in a damsel in distress situation in the film, where she was saved once by Star Lord.

However, it seems to me that feminists want to turn every single female character into the "strong and independent woman" archetype. Well, that's unrealistic if you ask me. Not every woman is like that. Not every *person* is like that, even. I speak for myself, since sometimes I'm not as assertive as a man is thought to be. I think that, if you like strong and independent women, that's fine, just try not to shove it down the throats of everyone. Taking Awakening as an example, having 10 copies of Sully replace the other female characters would be a disaster IMO. I know other female characters in the game are strong, too, but Sully is probably the example that feminists would enjoy more (achieves success in a male-dominated field, the knighthood).

Sometimes I feel that I'm facing some kind of problem because I want to create a character who draws her strength from her femininity rather than male characteristics. And I feel this would turn readers away.

[Parrhesia]

There's a difference between being a damsel in distress who's the weak point of the group and just a feminine woman. Most people appreciate that difference.

I have actually seen a backlash on tumbler recently, in favour of pushing actual well-rounded realism over 'strength' as what more is needed of.

But yeah nothing wrong with feminine women. I don't think it would turn people away just because the character isn't masculine - if it does, then are they really the sort of people you want to read your work?

[eclipse]

First off, feminists cover a wide spectrum, and it sounds like you're following the ones that are trying to portray women as a Gary Stu (hint: this is bad writing). Strength comes in a variety of forms, and even "strong", well-written male protagonists have their flaws. Perhaps you can write down, say, five characteristics that you absolutely want in your main character, and work from there?

[Sunwoo]

From my observation, a lot of writers don't seem to understand women. Hell, I'd argue there are some female writers who don't seem to understand women.

To me, it's not so much about putting a "strong, independent" woman in my stories. It's not even so much about men. When you create characters, don't put such focus on their gender. My male characters AND female characters come easily to me because they are often times based on character traits that I've observed in my friends. Sometimes a male character will have traits that a female friend does, and vice versa.

I don't need every female character to be strong and independent as long as she's portrayed realistically and fairly. While you can't please everyone, the important thing I'm trying to say is that WOMEN ARE PEOPLE. Don't focus on the gender so much as the traits that make her human and be consistent with characterization.

[Magical CC]

And also, a "strong and independent woman" doesnt mean she has to be cocky and arrogant which is sadly usually ignored by the writers.

[Tryhard]

I can tell if a character is bad before their gender is brought into the equation in my experience.

Sometimes I think that a part of the feminist "group" stretches for things too far in video games or fiction in general. A prime example would be Anita Sarkeesian's videos, which I vehemently disagree with.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Tryhard

[FrostyFireMage]

I've read somewhere that in order to make a strong female character some writers design a male character and just change their gender.

[Jotari]

The most important thing when writing a strong female character is the make an actual strong character. Even if they are feminine, or put in the role of Damsel in Distress, they need to be a strong character who actually feels like a real person and not just some role put there for the other (usually male) characters to accomplish. I think the best example of a strong female character I have ever seen is Scarlet O'Hara from Gone With The Wind. She isn't particularly Sully like tough and does require some rescuing during the more dangerous portions of the story but she's the one driving the plot and forcing the men to rescue her. In my opinion, anyone who has an interest in seeing strong female characters needs to watch this film (I haven't read the original book but I assume it's much the same). Aside from having a very strong female protagonist (made in a time where women didn't even have a vote and set in a time where they had even less rights yet not does not come across as unrealistic at all), it is one of the greatest pieces of cinematic works in history.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Jotari

[Xator Nova]

if you force yourself to write a "strong, independent female" archetype, you've already lost.

be sincere about your character, her motivations, dreams, strengths and weaknesses. find what makes her unique, make her learn about her advantages or make her overcome her personal fears.

that's what, to me, constitutes a strong character, and it doesn't depend on gender.

[RJWalker]

Don't pay attention to tumblr and twitter feminists. In their minds, the ideal 'strong and independent' woman is essentially a man with boobs and a vagina. Even the slightest hint of feminity is decried as sexist which is of course, complete bullshit.

[Bluedoom]

You're taking the twitter/tumblr people too seriously- twitter/tumblr are good places for people with stupid ideas and opinions to blog on because they are insufferable in real for anyone to respect them. Not saying all users are insufferable but a good chunk are(from what I've seen).

My advice is to just go with the flow of your writing and don't think too much about your character's personality. Don't think too much about masculinity and femininity- those are boxes that will limit your creativity. The good chunk of the story is its conflict and resolution- so focus on that.You'll get a decent idea of what you want your characters to act like as you keep writing.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that while keeping a general audience in mind is good, trying to make characters you don't want to make to appeal to a certain group is just not gonna work. You will always find a fanbase for your work, I swear!

Edited August 16, 2014 by Bluedoom

[Phoenix Wright]

the day we take sjw seriously is the day america falls.

the character is human, first and foremost. write about a human that happens to be a woman, not the other way around (i think you get what i mean). that way, i feel you'll have a very strong and relatable character for men and women alike.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[DreadFighter]

I believe in equal right for everyone. No matter how certain people act in media, as long as they have not done something that would be described as inhuman. I'm not sexist, but if feminists always got their way then it would be the opposite. Those are my thoughts anyay.

[Jotari]

The name feminism itself shows how hypocritical a movement it is. If they want equal rights then they should be called Equalists. Of course then they'd probably feel compelled to fight people with magic powers...

[Tryhard]

Just as to not get off track here, I too find the name feminism flawed. However, this does not mean that every feminist is seeking to solely focus on women's rights/issues. There are many people who identify as feminists, MRAs, humanists, equalists or anything else that they identify as that truly want equality for both genders. These people share my views and I can argue about the semantics but at the end of the day if they do want true equality the same as me, should I care about what they call themselves? The problem of course is the extremists or people who hold double standards that do not want true equality. I think many feminists etc may find my views more in line with their own more so than a lot of radical feminists; repeat for all other groups.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Tryhard

[Rehab]

Since the last few posts veered that way a little:*

I think "tumblr feminists" and "sjw feminists" (and just plain old "feminists") are terms whose common usages have inaccurate connotations, especially when you lump all three of them together. Not least because a hell of a lot of people who have and voice opinions that tend to be identified as both/each also have enough differences between them that they have it the fuck out with each other routinely.

[spoiler=A pasting of a post I made elsewhere on that subject, (mostly) preserved in its imperfect glory, because I'm lazy]A problem trying to have a view that isn't misanthropic about it is that [even on tumblr and twitter] there are literally dozens of "___ feminism" labels. Liberal, (self-proclaimed) radical, X-wave, gay, trans, Marxist feminism.

And they all have points of view that can end up being directly opposing on supposedly crucial issues. You like porn? There's a feminism for that. You mildly dislike porn? There's a feminism for that. Think the sex industry is the purest form of evil on earth and a microcosm/illustrative of men's enslavement of women and kyriarchy (tn: tyranny, basically) in general? There's definitely a feminism for that. Like men, straight or gay? There's a feminism that includes them. Kinda don't like em? They got that too. Think they shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves feminists, and should at best say they "support feminism," that is if such a person exists because you've certainly never met one? Yep. Like trans people? Yep. Hate common perceptions of gender, but not trans people? Yep. Hate trans people? Yep.

[spoiler=this part gets a bit more offtopic]It's like, the reality is the opposite of the no true scotsman fallacy. Even somebody who likes [some kind of/some element of a kind of] feminism has to give their own fucking thesis statement on [what it is I actually believe] to explain what they mean. And too often it gets communicated with buzzwords that people have learned to hear and tune out, because somebody with no self-awareness used them prior or after to telling them to literally kill themselves or something.
And on tumblr it can be even worse, because people repeat ideas that clearly come from [a place], as in their ideas clearly have a name and phylum and shit, but even they don't know where they got them, so sourcing on philosophy is bad and even kind of silly to ask for, and thousands of people haven't heard bits and pieces that other thousands of people have, and more thousands assume more thousands must have heard certain things because everybody must have heard them, even when they haven't really, and ideas can get a bad first impression because of the people delivering them before they're even communicated. Also, some people just have a lot of problems that add up to difficulties with having basic empathy for other peoples' problems.
And all that may contribute to our living in an environment where one might get "called" a "sjw" because they attempted serious conversation about rape or some kinda glass ceiling or something, or in which somebody might get get a shriek of a response to a one-word question, "Source?" when they ask for the data behind the statistics somebody else rattled off about rape or some kinda glass ceiling or something. (not that I'd know, I don't talk to people much)

Which is a bit of a shame, because the bottom line is things really could be better. imo

As for writing female any characters, I don't think it's any bad thing to be conscientious about how you write a character, and how like ones have often been represented in some other media (especially ones who belong to any group of people that you don't). That said, though, even if you were to put forth the maximum possible effort in doing so, at the same time I don't think it would be worth begrudging you because some people didn't think what you did was enough. Hell, since ideologies held don't neatly translate into opinions held on everything, not even on everything that the held ideologies are themselves specifically supposed to cover, you could end up getting any number of people, who identify themselves any which way, who disagree among themselves on whether you fucked it up or not.

Which is to say that I think it falls outside your control whether at least somebody out there will be pissed. Because there will be such a somebody! Even, likely, somebody (or a lot of somebodies) among a group of people whose concerns you may be especially trying to listen to and address. It's just that said somebody/somebodies will be a different individual/set of individuals, depending on what you do. The very, very most I think that could be expected of anybody (but I still wouldn't, at least not as a hard rule, because even it alone is a lot of fuckin research to do and and a lot of experience to acquire, and it's just on one issue out of however many could come up in the course of writing something) is to do enough research that you know what sorts of things you may write will piss off who, and then bite the bullet and get ready to piss those people off when you actually get down to writing the thing.

And to be sure, it's always an option for you to just not care what anybody approximating a feminist would think or say about whatever it is you write, if you just don't want to bother to please them. It's just as much their right to dislike/disagree with/whatever the way you execute it and giving hella reasons why, but that doesn't itself stop you from making the thing if you want to make it.

I personally think at least hearing those/any such people out is probably a good idea, not just for the sake of understanding the way that what it is you make will be received (in the case that's something you care about), but also because it'll just inform your writing more in general. In the end, though, it's as much of a creative obligation as you make it- somebody may have a problem with your writing, and this may even lead to their having a problem with you, but that's not exactly the same as/a guarantor of their having a problem with the fact that you wrote something. (sometimes, people will, have that problem, though. again, you get to decide how to deal with it, but there is another, slightly different issue of "whether your writing is paid more attention and ends up drowning out somebody else's (and other things) because of your personal advantages" there. but it can wait for another fucking post, damn it)

too fucking long, dfr: Readers are allowed to be turned away, just as you're allowed to turn them away. If that matters to you and you want to avoid it, figure out what's turning them away, and if you want to change your stuff to avoid that, then do it. If you're having trouble figuring that out, you can always just plainly ask them what they'd actually like to see.

may set down actual thoughts on writing female characters later, having a hard time segueing into that from the above but I'll be fucked if I typed all that for nothing

*as of my last edit this is a blatant fucking lie, I haven't actually checked what the most recent posts were that got posted after I started writing but begorrah this is getting posted if it kills me

**okay I checked. lads we have some talking to do

Edited August 16, 2014 by Rehab

[Jotari]

In my defense, my post was meant to be a joke referencing the equalists from The Legend of Korra, but the meaning was probably lost among the series discussion.

[Tryhard]

**okay I checked. lads we have some talking to do

damn haven't you done enough talking son

I mean I read your post and I think I agree with it but I can't help but feel that I didn't come away with the meaning.

rip i'm too stoopid

Edited August 16, 2014 by Tryhard

[Rehab]

Nah I just belabored the shit out of it.

What I meant that text wall to say is that, regarding Malebolganone/BJ/W. Cordelia's feelings about how the feminists he knows talk about writing female characters and his worries about how readers will receive a character written as taking strength from her femininity, there some separate issues there:

-potential reader responses to how he writes the character, which depends moreso on his craft

-women's representation in media at large, which depends on a lot more than what he makes by itself

He'll get as many different responses to how he writes the character as he gets readers. And regarding,

I've been wanting to make this thread for a while, because I think there are people here who will be able to help me.

You probably aren't aware that I'm writing a book. With a female protagonist.

I follow some feminists on Twitter and they seem to value strong and independent women in media, but sometimes I feel they exaggerate. Like, every fictional girl from now on needs to pass some sort of "test" of "strength" and "independence" in order to be a good feminine example. I read a review of Guardians of the Galaxy which criticized the fact Gamora (a strong and independent feminine character) was put in a damsel in distress situation in the film, where she was saved once by Star Lord.

However, it seems to me that feminists want to turn every single female character into the "strong and independent woman" archetype. Well, that's unrealistic if you ask me. Not every woman is like that. Not every *person* is like that, even. I speak for myself, since sometimes I'm not as assertive as a man is thought to be. I think that, if you like strong and independent women, that's fine, just try not to shove it down the throats of everyone. Taking Awakening as an example, having 10 copies of Sully replace the other female characters would be a disaster IMO. I know other female characters in the game are strong, too, but Sully is probably the example that feminists would enjoy more (achieves success in a male-dominated field, the knighthood).

Sometimes I feel that I'm facing some kind of problem because I want to create a character who draws her strength from her femininity rather than male characteristics. And I feel this would turn readers away.

well, I have indeed heard from some people, among them women who identified as feminists, who gave me the impression that yeah, they would drop that idea like a live grenade as soon as they heard it.

[spoiler=For example]There's a stance taken by some people I heard self-describe as radical feminists (though I can't say whether they speak for everybody who calls themselves that) that - to be brief about it - femininity is the complete antithesis of strength. In the case of the people I heard from, it's not because they despise women who are feminine, but because they feel it's a cage, an unnatural straitjacket of expected behaviors whose legitimacy is reinforced everywhere, including within creative media, all over the world, and whose purposes and effects are: to keep women less than equal to men at best, and directly subservient or worse, at worst. So, yeah, that sort of character development would indeed definitely put those people right off as potential readers, doubly so because it's written by a man.

They do indeed exist. I seen em. I might even sorta get em.

There's also plenty of people, including women, and lots who'd call themselves feminists, who wouldn't think anything of the sort. There's actually a lot of them on tumblr and twitter, and there's also a bunch who might well love a character/story like that, depending on how he writes them.

So, if he wants the readership of those people whose eyes would glaze over as soon as they heard his plan for the character's development, he'd probably have to change or forget that idea he has in mind, yeah. But of course, given it's his hypothetical book, he doesn't have to. He can make a calculation out of "what will writing X do to appeal more to Y" if he wants, but he can also just write what he has in his head and not give a fig- it's up to him, and what he thinks of the issue and the people involved.

And just regarding "turning readers away," that's going to happen somehow no matter what he writes, but there's also pretty much certainly going to be an audience for what he said he wants to write somewhere. If he doesn't think the opinion of those people he disagrees with here is worth taking into account, it's not like they constitute enough people to sink him for sure.

All of that, though, is a slightly different issue from "are they right"

Edited August 17, 2014 by Rehab

[Skynstein]

Thanks everyone for the answers.

As expected, since I'm not a woman, it's preferred to build the characters as human, first and foremost, but I find it to be difficult because the majority of people have these gender quirks that come with them as cultural influence, so getting rid of gender in characterization isn't easy. Ideally I'd like to do with gender the same as with race or even sexual orientation and not follow stereotypes. I'm not gay but I imagine the way gay people love isn't any different from the way heterosexual people love.

Since eclipse asked, my MC is...

1) Emotional but finds it hard to express it.

2) Polite.

3) Caring.

4) Not on the brave side, for now. This should change as she develops.

5) I'd say she's insecure, which is the weakness I wanted to give her.

I modeled her on myself. :P She's very much like what I was in my teen days.

Another thing that's a staple of my story and feminists wouldn't like is that every major female character has something with a man. My MC falls in love with her mentor, another girl is turned into a vampire and wants revenge on the vampire who turned her, and the sister of my MC's mentor has a grudge with him. The latter two girls don't pass the Bechdel test yet either.

Generally I don't like these rules, tests (like Bechdel and Mary Sue tests) and I'd prefer to do as I please.

[eclipse]

Now, let's see what this would look like if I saw someone with these qualities, without seeing their inner monologue:

- Emotional but unable to express it very well: "Either this person doesn't have too many emotions, or is afraid of. . .something. Probably both."

- Polite/Caring - "Well, thank goodness this person isn't an ass."

- Not brave - "Combined with the emotional thing, might probably be really afraid of stepping on toes."

- Insecure - This REALLY depends on how you have her act it out, as this can make her appear to be anything from a self-centered diva to a nervous wreck.

The conclusions I'd draw is that this character has low self-esteem, and requires the approval of others to be happy. I'm not sure if this is what you wanted to portray.

[Parrhesia]

Well the Bechdel test is hardly restrictive. You should literally be passing it accidentally.

Barring some kind of character-driven-with-very-few-characters story. Pacific Rim doesn't pass it, but Mako gets an arc of her own that doesn't even slightly give a fuck about romance, so it basically counts.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Parrhesia

[Jotari]

The bechdel test shouldn't restrict your writing but it is something to be aware of. It's fine and dandy for the most important person in a woman's life to be a man, but ideally a character should have important relationships beyond just one person. The bechdel test shouldn't be forced but if you use a plentiful number of female characters and write them well then they should inevitably interact with each other at some point and, as Parrhesia pointed out, most will pass it accidentally.

[The Geek]

The most important thing when writing a strong female character is the make an actual strong character. Even if they are feminine, or put in the role of Damsel in Distress, they need to be a strong character who actually feels like a real person and not just some role put there for the other (usually male) characters to accomplish. I think the best example of a strong female character I have ever seen is Scarlet O'Hara from Gone With The Wind. She isn't particularly Sully like tough and does require some rescuing during the more dangerous portions of the story but she's the one driving the plot and forcing the men to rescue her. In my opinion, anyone who has an interest in seeing strong female characters needs to watch this film (I haven't read the original book but I assume it's much the same). Aside from having a very strong female protagonist (made in a time where women didn't even have a vote and set in a time where they had even less rights yet not does not come across as unrealistic at all), it is one of the greatest pieces of cinematic works in history.

Scarlett in the book is still strong, but she's also really selfish and overall despicable. Not exactly a role model.

[Jotari]

Scarlett in the book is still strong, but she's also really selfish and overall despicable. Not exactly a role model.

Movie!Scarlet is quite selfish and does some down right despicable things too like outright stealing another woman's husband, but the way it's presented makes it a positive more than a negative. The society she's living in means survival of the fittest and if she doesn't do some under handed things, as a woman, she just won't be able to get anything done. She is very much motivated by self gain but she's also very loyal to her friends, even if she doesn't particularly like them and wants nothing more than to leave them and run away with Ashley (a guy for those of you who don't know). It's a curious mix of selfishness and selflessness that works very well and makes her quite admirable. I take it from your word that it's done differently in the book but some of her positive traits must be there too I imagine, otherwise the story would go on a completely different course.

Of course it goes without saying that anyone who spends so much time next to selfless-saint-like-pure-goodness Melanie is going to look like a bitch in comparison.